Gove goes to Supreme Court

Michae Gove is preparing to take the Shoesmith decision to the Supreme ourt. This from DfE.

A DfE spokesman said: “The Government thinks that it was right in principle for Sharon Shoesmith to be removed from her post as Director of Children’s Services.

“The High Court thought that the decision was taken in a fair way. The Court of Appeal said today that they thought it was not sufficiently fair, and was therefore unlawful.

“There are questions of constitutional importance involved in this case, beyond the specific question about whether Ed Balls should have had a further meeting with Sharon Shoesmith before removing her.

“Our initial application to appeal has been turned down by the Court of Appeal. We intend to pursue an appeal to the Supreme Court."

Abuse of Power...and language

There was an odd section in Michael Gove’s speech yesterday in which he sought to play down the term “abuse of power”.

Gove was accused of doing just that by a High Court judge last week after cutting funding earmarked to rebuild schools. But when Andy Burnham brought it up Gove replied…

“He will be familiar with the fact that ‘abuse of power’ is a judicial term that has been in use since 1603 and, in particular, has been applied in judicial review cases since 1985.

“It has been applied to Cabinet Ministers on both sides of the House.

“It is a matter of open debate that judicial review is there to ensure that decisions taken by Cabinet Ministers can be reviewed in the Court.”

Gove’s intention was to negate the significance of the term by suggesting in the first sentence that it has been used for years, in the second, that it is something lots of politicians have been accused of, and in the third, that the courts shouldn’t even have the power to say such things.

Let’s take those sentences one by one. It’s rather banal to point out when “abuse of power” first came into use. After all, the terms theft, adultery and murder have all been around for longer, but have no less meaning for it.

I’m not comparing Gove’s abuse to murder of course – simply saying that offences do not ‘go off’ like milk or cheese, they do not become less important over time.

The second sentence is a political defence. He’s saying to Burnham – “Labour politicians abused power when in Government too”. Maybe they did, but the public will think “it’s you who’s doing the abusing right now”.

In the third sentence, it is as though Gove knows that directly questioning the judge’s power to review ministerial decisions is pushing it. So his words are carefully chosen and rendered a little inane.

That it is “open for debate” as to whether judicial review can be used in the way it has is neither here nor there. After all, everything is “open for debate”.

The fact is that judicial review has been used in the way it has. Gove’s decision has been overturned. The judge says an abuse of power has been committed.

So what does that term "abuse of power" really mean? Improper use of authority by someone who has that authority because he or she holds a public office.

That is the single fact that Burnham and Labour should have pushed home last night, they should not have strayed from that point.

As it was at times they played into Gove’s hands by getting into a debate about whether BSF was a good programme or not. That meant the Education Secretary got off lightly in what could have been a highly damaging encounter.

What Burnham got wrong and what he missed...

Andy Burnham has made a key mistake in his reaction to the decision at High Court today relating to cuts to the Building Schools for the Future programme.

At around 10.30am a judge said that Michael Gove’s decision to withdraw funding for school rebuilding projects in six council areas was “unlawful”.

In a piece on the Labour website the shadow education secretary writes: “The ruling calls into question every school building scheme cut by Michael Gove.”

That is not the case and the judge specifically said so. In fact Mr Justice Holman said: “The decision [to cut funding] is now over seven months ago, and in my view any other authorities would now be far too late to apply for judicial review.

“I do not mean to trivialise so important an issue, but it may be said that fortune has favoured the brave.”

In other words – if you’ve brought you case, well done you for having the gumption, but if you haven’t the door is closed.

I’ve already heard of councils thinking this case means something significant for them. It doesn’t, and it’s unfair of Burnham to stir hopes in the way he has.

What he has missed in his statement is that the case does open up the fundamentals of Government education policy to a clear line of political attack which will play very well with Labour supporters.

This case was brought by councils – big education authorities who had the financial and legal clout to push the Government back to the drawing board.

Would a free school set up by parents, or even a city academy run by education professionals, have the power to do the same? What would one free school be able to do if the Government decided to cut off its funding?

So this case says something very significant about the balance of power between local and national government and how that balance may shift massively if councils lose overall control of education.

See you in court….

Bad news for the Government. Nottingham City Council has been given permission to go to a full court hearing in their bid to overturn a Coalition decision to cancel school funding.

Nottingham had been promised millions under the Building Schools for the Future programme to upgrade its secondary schools.

But earlier this year Education Secretary Michael Gove withdrew the funding, despite the council have already spend a lot of money on the preparatory planning.

Unwilling to accept the decision Nottingham sought judicial review and has now been given permission by the courts to take the case forward.

The date of the full hearing is to be decided at a case management session on Monday.

Education questions gets catty...

There was a good old tit-for-tat verbal punch-up between Education Secretary Michael Gove and his new shadow Andy Burnham today in the Commons.

Burnham kicked off by claiming that Gove had lived up to his previous career as a journalist by displaying a “loose grasp of the facts” on the Building Schools for the Future programme.

Gove came back…

"Can I first of all congratulate him on his elevation to being shadow education secretary. Can I say that I admire the way in which he fought his leadership campaign. He was an advocate both for modernisation and aspirational socialism – which is why of course he came fourth out of five, neither of those values being entirely flavour of the month in the Labour part at the moment. Can I also thank him for his reference to my past as a journalist, it was a pleasure to spend some time in a job outside politics before I came into this House. I recommend it to the honourable gentleman."

Burnham came back with the sarcastic comment “I thank him for his characteristic graciousness” before telling Gove he had the “air of the self satisfied teacher’s pet”.

If the rest of their clashes are as much fun I’ll be turning up to education questions more often.

Must have been work experience week at the DfE...

Gove struggles

No better way to start the day than by watching a frontbencher squirm, particularly the usually eloquent and solid Gove.



Courtesy of Political Scrapbook

Gove moth infestation...

Michael Gove has been accused, bizarrely, of bringing a moth infested carpet into the House of Commons.

Graham Allen MP complained about the moth infestation in his Westminster office corridor.

He said: “It is not true that the first moth arrived when I opened my wallet nor when I had to examine my 1987 expenses claims.

“The fact is Michael Gove MP brought in a second hand Moroccan carpet and ever since we have been plagued by them.

“Michael Gove somehow has managed to get a transfer to another [moth free] office.

“I hope the Common House moth does not take up permanent residence and become the House’s Common moth.”

Conservative rural re-action

Lobbydog was unimpressed with the Conservative’s Rural Action campaign which the party “launched” today.

Rural Action was touted as an “agenda for rural communities”. In truth it was largely made up of previously announced proposals collected in a document with “rural” written on the front.

It seemed particularly meagre as Gordon Brown was given such an ear-bashing by the Tories for wrapping up old policies in new packaging with the Building Britain’s Future plan last week.

In Rural Action the Tories said they’d help save village schools by abolishing current limits on surplus places. But this was a wider policy David Cameron and Michael Gove proposed as far back as 18 months ago.

Under Rural Action the party would also let communities decide where new developments went through Local Housing Trusts, something Grant Schapps announced in April.

Then there was the document’s promise to help small firms with tax relief – one of Caroline Spelman’s announcements from March.

They would’ve been better off highlighting the benefit of their policies to rural areas when they were first announced – and targeting the relevant rural media outlets to hammer the point home.

Instead they’re trying to convince rural lobby groups that they’re important because they have their very own “agenda” document, full of polices announced months ago for everyone else.

Shadow rural affairs minister Jim Paice admitted the Tories don’t have the rural vote sewn up yet – if they want it they need to do better than this.

Tories get their cheque books out

David Cameron will make an announcement in about 40 mins that senior Tories will pay money they claimed on their expenses back.

I'm told Michael Gove will be among those handing cash back.

We'll find out other names and how it's all going to be done later.

UPDATE: Sky is reporting that Harriet Harman has now asked Don Touhig to come up with a proposal for the repayment of misclaimed expenses.

UPDATE UPDATE: Cameron has brought his announcement forward 15 minutes. The parties are clambering to pay back their misclaimed expenses first. What a farce!

Tories target counties

Look at where the shadow cabinet is going to launch the Tory local election campaign today and you’ll see some of the authorities at which the party believes it can make the greatest gains.

It’s no secret they’re targeting the midlands counties like Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire, where Labour councils are scared the Government’s unpopularity might see them unseated.

Liam Fox is in Devon, Michael Gove is in North Yorkshire, Alan Duncan is in Essex, Chris Grayling is in Lancashire, Francis Maude is in Derbyshire and Theresa May is in Notts.

Meanwhile George Osborne is in Somerset, Eric Pickles is in Warwickshire, Grant Schapps is in East Sussex and Caroline Spelman will go with David Cameron to Tynemouth.

Big beast or mule?

Ken Clarke has been called a few things in his time, though being compared to a drugs smuggler must be a first.

A stinging attack was launched on the Rushcliffe MP – it came up while I was away but I couldn’t let it pass – in which he was compared to a Columbian drugs mule of all things.

The rather bizarre comparison was made by the usually smooth-talking Michael Gove in a Times article a few years back, and then regurgitated by Ed Balls in the Commons.

Gove apparently wrote:

For the Conservatives to return to power, the party must be seen to have learnt from its mistakes, rejected the arrogance, cynicism and pocketlining of the Major era.

Ken Clarke is sadly ill-equipped to do that job.

As John Major’s tax-raising Chancellor, British American Tobacco’s handsomely remunerated director, the Euro’s voter-rubbishing cheerleader and the tireless hammer of nurses and teachers, Ken carries more tainted baggage than a mule on Colombia airways.

After being confronted with the criticism of his now cabinet colleague, Gove told Balls his Commons speech was uncharacteristically witty.

Maybe someone else who is itching to attack Clarke was feeding him lines?